Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.49; envelope-from=raphfrk@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f49.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1xFdrX61HsRxsXxXW+i0FzjQkoNVRaDG-2yJNOfYUi5FnsPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Raph Frank <raphfrk@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule
 modifications into the block chain
Precedence: list

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> You misunderstand what BIP_0034 is doing=97 it's not gauging consensus,
> it's making sure that the change is safe to enforce. This is a subtle
> but important difference.

Sounds reasonable.

The change in BIP-34 doesn't cause old client to reject the main chain.

The increase to the maximum block size would be rejected by old
clients, so is different.

Adding new opcodes (as long as they act like a NOP on success) also
doesn't cause a disagreement about what is the longest chain, in the
end.  Miners might end up mining chains which are guaranteed to be
orphaned at worst.

> Bitcoin is not a democracy=97 it quite intentionally uses the consensus
> mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and
> interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions).

So, how is max block size to be decided then?